Horrifying
Added 11/24/2009
This frightening and realistic movie will upset both liberals and conservatives. It is very engaging with some edge of your seat moments and relentless in its pursuit of bringing you to hate Matt Dillon.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
THIS FILM AIMS LOW--AND HITS WHAT IT AIMS AT
Added 10/12/2009
Just as all sorts of very different animals--such as bats, kangaroos, monkeys, alligators, seals, cattle, mice, etc.--have brains, eyes, ears, teeth, backbones, ribs, shoulders, hips, hearts, lungs, etc. as their similar components, any writer (or any two or more writers) can use basically one group of component parts to accomplish many different purposes or effects. For instance, take a good king, his murderous brother, and the good king's son--one writer makes HAMLET, and another makes THE LION KING. A third writer can change the mix a tiny bit--and come up with MADAGASCAR: ESCAPE 2 AFRICA.
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH takes some of the components of the real-life story of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, her husband Joseph Wilson, and Judith Miller (the NY TIMES reporter who was jailed for not revealing her source)--and turns them inside out (in his commentary, Rod Lurie, an ex-newspaperman and the writer-director, says, "I wanted to put in the character of a reporter . . . somebody that was, in fact, RIGHT about the story she was reporting on, and so, from almost every point of view, was NOT Judith Miller"). The film focuses on a reporter (Kate Beckinsale) who publishes an article revealing that the White House attacked a foreign country despite a CIA agent's report that that country had nothing to do with an attempt on the U.S. president's life. What follows is a battle to learn who the reporter's sources were. Matt Dillon (special prosecutor) tries to squeeze the information out of the reporter by throwing her in prison; Alan Alda (her defense attorney) is an ineffectual, pathetic fop most of the time. Months pass, and the case goes to the Supreme Court, where the expected decision is rendered. And Dillon's character (apparently vindictive because he has totally failed to learn her main source) sees to it that more punishment follows--tangentially providing a rather ugly view of "our" government. Almost as ugly is the collapse of the reporter's marriage: within just a few months of her being sent to prison, all her husband can focus on is finding another woman to have sex with.
And what, at the end, does this all add up to? This film, judging by the way its components have been edited and cut, merely turns out to have been a kind of Puzzle for us viewers to solve if we can. This means it is in the same category as a wit-twister like the film THE LAST OF SHEILA. Essentially, the film's punch-line issue becomes "Can YOU figure out who the reporter's main source was?" because the final scene at last reveals/confirms WHO that person was. (Most Agatha Christie mystery readers, among others, can figure this out about halfway through, but the sequencing of the components turns it into the film's main point.)
Given its components, which could have been rearranged/re-edited to create a different impact, this COULD have been a much better film. For instance, the question of "who" could have been disclosed early, and the film could then have been a serious work like ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman) or THE VERDICT (starring Paul Newman) or SYRIANA (starring George Clooney). It could then have focused on complex issues like facets of the First Amendment (freedom of the press) vs. national security concerns--or on how the White House repeatedly has lied to us and to Congress about bogus national security concerns in order to justify all sorts of illegal and destructive things (long before we had GWB, there were LBJ and RMN). Could this kind of change have been made? Quite easily: the DVD includes two deleted scenes that could only have been in just such an alternative ending--or something very close to it.
Sadly most of the actors were wasted in this film. Vera Farmiga (the Plame figure) did the most plausible acting job but was "removed" from the film in an unpleasant way. Do I have other objections? Well, one would be the opening scene in which the president is shot: no attempt is made to examine his wound and stop his bleeding. Another would be a small slip of the tongue 32 minutes into the film where a lawyer says "Fifth Amendment issues" when he clearly meant to say "First Amendment issues" (this should have been caught and redubbed). Further, considering how polarized our society is nowadays, quite implausibly this film shows no individuals or groups or organizations protesting against or fighting against the injustices that are occurring.
Not incidentally, Rod Lurie, as director, did make the RIGHT decision to play down the glamourous looks of Kate Beckinsale--and to delete a nude shower scene of hers which would totally have changed the nature of the whole film. And, no, it is NOT included among the deleted scenes; it is merely mentioned during his detailed commentary.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Sharp, engaging take on a journalist protecting her sources
Added 10/2/2009
The men are real scum in this one. David Schwimmer gets to play a guy who basically gives up on his heroic wife while Matt Dillon gets to play a blood-thirsty prosecutor bent on furthering his career whatever the human cost. Even Alan Alda (minus a fine little speech before the Supreme Court) gets to basically fail in defending his client.
His client is Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale) a journalist who finds herself in contempt of court for not revealing her source for a story on the outing of a CIA agent. (Shades of the Judith Miller/Valerie Plame Wilson case.) Here instead of the Iraq war we have an assignation attempt on the President supposedly by somebody in Venezuela after which the US takes some military action. Rachel ends up in jail and we get to see her suffer all the deprivations of being jail, getting beaten up, estranged from her son and her husband, who betrays her. She is doing all this to protect a source, and a kind of journalistic honor code. David Swimmer's character isn't interested in journalist honor codes. He is displeased that she cares more about protecting her source than in being with him and her son.
Clearly this is a Belt Way story told as a woman's POV flick. It is engaging and it moves right along. It is sharp, just a tad short of slick. We cannot help but identify with Kate Beckinsale's character. And when we find out at the very, very end whom she is protecting we understand. It is a nice twist, one of the cleverest I've seen in movies in quite a while. The end is just perfect.
I was about to write that "every soccer mom and indeed every mom will identify with Kate Beckinsale's character" but actually not all of them will. But when they see the ending they might change their mind.
See this for the clever twist, for the sharp direction and editing and for a fine performance by Kate Beckinsale.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
The Truth Hurts
Added 10/2/2009
The freedom of the press, issues of national security, and the consequences of standing by one's personal principles are all on trial in "Nothing But the Truth." I'm not sure why the reviews here tend to be so negative, save the ranting of those who fail to see that this film represents two sides.
Kate Beckinsale plays the role of a journalist who writes a story implicating the government's top echelons in declaring an act of war with trumped-up evidence. Matt Dillon plays the prosecutor who pressures her to reveal her source--since that source has violated the law by naming a covert CIA agent, played to great effect by Vera Farmiga. Yes, the plot has some obvious correlations to events of the past few years, which seems to be the thorn in the side of some reviewers, but it gives both sides important things to say. While the film does center around Beckinsale, building sympathy for her, it also gives Dillon's character a chance to stand by his own moral codes to protect his country. The issues of the First and Fifth Amendment are considered here.
"Nothing But the Truth" keeps us hooked by the secret identify of the source that Beckinsale protects with such ferocity. Alan Alda plays her lawyer, while Angela Bassett plays her editor. Though both add layers, it's Beckinsale, Farmiga, and Dillon who drive the story. Beckinsale and Farmiga are strong female characters, both threatened with the losses of marriage and family ties, both feeling persecuted for doing their jobs.
I hold dear the power of the written word and the right to speak the truth. I also believe national security is of vital importance, and I like the fact this film honors that as well. However, a government that cannot be held accountable to faulty actions is in a position to abuse its powers--take recent events in Iran, as an example. As a proud American, I want our President to be able to make decisions, in secret, that protect our country. I also want our leaders to be called to account if they violate the law--as in the Watergate case.
"Nothing But the Truth" forces us to consider principles and integrity from the highest levels down to our personal lives. The film does move a bit slowly at times, mainly because Beckinsale's obvious refusal to budge leaves few questions left to be answered, but the twist at the end helps us understand her bullheadedness.
The truth here hurts. Beckinsale and Farmiga have a lot to lose, and even Dillon must risk accusations of coldheartedness for standing by his own beliefs. Superb acting all around lifts this movie above many others that have tackled this subject. Those who refuse to weigh both sides of this debate fail to understand the tough decisions that faced America's forefathers. I, for one, loved this film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
National security trumps journalistic integrity - there is no debate
Added 9/25/2009
When Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale) - hint, hint, Judith Miller - gets an inside scoop on the personal identity of a CIA operative, she eschews legal ramifications, not to mention patriotic security obligations, and prints the story outing the agent Erica Van Doren (Vera Farmiga) - hint, hint, Valerie Plame - who just so happens to be a neighbor, fellow soccer mom, and wife of an influential politician.
What follows is a battle between those who believe a newspaper's obligation to the news, as well as the journalistic integrity of never revealing a source, believing the truth and merit of their story supersedes other concerns, and the combination of the U.S. government and the law, both of which are present to protect the anonymity of CIA agents and national security.
The cast in this film is simply fantastic. Along with Kate Beckinsale, David Schwimmer is the supportive husband who supports, but eventually buckles under the pressure of having an imprisoned wife. Angela Basset as a newspaper's editor in chief who initially shows great support but eventually shows waning interest. Noah Wyle shows great angst as the newspaper's lawyer, and even calling in a hot-shot, mercenary lawyer, Alan Alda, but eventually succumbs to pressure beyond his expectations. Each character's realization of defeat is frustratingly gradual, but taken wholly; the collective defeat is blatant. When Wyle and Alda decay from conceit to confident, to literally choking on their words, the vise-like headlock applied by the strong arm of the law, which in this case is special prosecutor Matt Dillon, is soul crushing.
Suspenseful except for a bad ending, this film will have viewers choosing sides early and challenging their own beliefs. Determining who is right or wrong, or what is just or unfair, is an introspective struggle, but I feel the case is clear cut here. Regardless of political affiliation, the movie is interesting.
--Commentary--
Based so close to reality, with a thinly veiled disguise, it's insulting to think that anyone wouldn't realize the movie's true intentions. If those involved really wanted a Valerie Plame scandal piece, or a hatchet-job on the previous administration's pre-war intelligence, then they should have just named Beckinsale's character Mudith Jiller. Ultimately, it's the confused politics and journalistic ego that nearly ruins the plot. Exposing a source is entirely different from revealing matters of national security. And, trust me, it's VERY difficult for me to root against a Kate Beckinsale character. When it's journalism versus national security, journalistic integrity absolutely must get trumped every time. And the stupid part is, if Beckinsale's character had simply revealed her source originally, things would have turned out MUCH better for all involved.
The media lovers can cry me a river about their slippery slope argument leading to 1984 dystopian media, because when it comes down to it, divulging secret information to a reporter is a crime, and the person responsible should be held accountable. Break the law, or aid and abet the law-breaker, and you go to jail. It's that simple.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Horrifying
Added 11/24/2009
This frightening and realistic movie will upset both liberals and conservatives. It is very engaging with some edge of your seat moments and relentless in its pursuit of bringing you to hate Matt Dillon.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
THIS FILM AIMS LOW--AND HITS WHAT IT AIMS AT
Added 10/12/2009
Just as all sorts of very different animals--such as bats, kangaroos, monkeys, alligators, seals, cattle, mice, etc.--have brains, eyes, ears, teeth, backbones, ribs, shoulders, hips, hearts, lungs, etc. as their similar components, any writer (or any two or more writers) can use basically one group of component parts to accomplish many different purposes or effects. For instance, take a good king, his murderous brother, and the good king's son--one writer makes HAMLET, and another makes THE LION KING. A third writer can change the mix a tiny bit--and come up with MADAGASCAR: ESCAPE 2 AFRICA.
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH takes some of the components of the real-life story of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, her husband Joseph Wilson, and Judith Miller (the NY TIMES reporter who was jailed for not revealing her source)--and turns them inside out (in his commentary, Rod Lurie, an ex-newspaperman and the writer-director, says, "I wanted to put in the character of a reporter . . . somebody that was, in fact, RIGHT about the story she was reporting on, and so, from almost every point of view, was NOT Judith Miller"). The film focuses on a reporter (Kate Beckinsale) who publishes an article revealing that the White House attacked a foreign country despite a CIA agent's report that that country had nothing to do with an attempt on the U.S. president's life. What follows is a battle to learn who the reporter's sources were. Matt Dillon (special prosecutor) tries to squeeze the information out of the reporter by throwing her in prison; Alan Alda (her defense attorney) is an ineffectual, pathetic fop most of the time. Months pass, and the case goes to the Supreme Court, where the expected decision is rendered. And Dillon's character (apparently vindictive because he has totally failed to learn her main source) sees to it that more punishment follows--tangentially providing a rather ugly view of "our" government. Almost as ugly is the collapse of the reporter's marriage: within just a few months of her being sent to prison, all her husband can focus on is finding another woman to have sex with.
And what, at the end, does this all add up to? This film, judging by the way its components have been edited and cut, merely turns out to have been a kind of Puzzle for us viewers to solve if we can. This means it is in the same category as a wit-twister like the film THE LAST OF SHEILA. Essentially, the film's punch-line issue becomes "Can YOU figure out who the reporter's main source was?" because the final scene at last reveals/confirms WHO that person was. (Most Agatha Christie mystery readers, among others, can figure this out about halfway through, but the sequencing of the components turns it into the film's main point.)
Given its components, which could have been rearranged/re-edited to create a different impact, this COULD have been a much better film. For instance, the question of "who" could have been disclosed early, and the film could then have been a serious work like ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman) or THE VERDICT (starring Paul Newman) or SYRIANA (starring George Clooney). It could then have focused on complex issues like facets of the First Amendment (freedom of the press) vs. national security concerns--or on how the White House repeatedly has lied to us and to Congress about bogus national security concerns in order to justify all sorts of illegal and destructive things (long before we had GWB, there were LBJ and RMN). Could this kind of change have been made? Quite easily: the DVD includes two deleted scenes that could only have been in just such an alternative ending--or something very close to it.
Sadly most of the actors were wasted in this film. Vera Farmiga (the Plame figure) did the most plausible acting job but was "removed" from the film in an unpleasant way. Do I have other objections? Well, one would be the opening scene in which the president is shot: no attempt is made to examine his wound and stop his bleeding. Another would be a small slip of the tongue 32 minutes into the film where a lawyer says "Fifth Amendment issues" when he clearly meant to say "First Amendment issues" (this should have been caught and redubbed). Further, considering how polarized our society is nowadays, quite implausibly this film shows no individuals or groups or organizations protesting against or fighting against the injustices that are occurring.
Not incidentally, Rod Lurie, as director, did make the RIGHT decision to play down the glamourous looks of Kate Beckinsale--and to delete a nude shower scene of hers which would totally have changed the nature of the whole film. And, no, it is NOT included among the deleted scenes; it is merely mentioned during his detailed commentary.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Sharp, engaging take on a journalist protecting her sources
Added 10/2/2009
The men are real scum in this one. David Schwimmer gets to play a guy who basically gives up on his heroic wife while Matt Dillon gets to play a blood-thirsty prosecutor bent on furthering his career whatever the human cost. Even Alan Alda (minus a fine little speech before the Supreme Court) gets to basically fail in defending his client.
His client is Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale) a journalist who finds herself in contempt of court for not revealing her source for a story on the outing of a CIA agent. (Shades of the Judith Miller/Valerie Plame Wilson case.) Here instead of the Iraq war we have an assignation attempt on the President supposedly by somebody in Venezuela after which the US takes some military action. Rachel ends up in jail and we get to see her suffer all the deprivations of being jail, getting beaten up, estranged from her son and her husband, who betrays her. She is doing all this to protect a source, and a kind of journalistic honor code. David Swimmer's character isn't interested in journalist honor codes. He is displeased that she cares more about protecting her source than in being with him and her son.
Clearly this is a Belt Way story told as a woman's POV flick. It is engaging and it moves right along. It is sharp, just a tad short of slick. We cannot help but identify with Kate Beckinsale's character. And when we find out at the very, very end whom she is protecting we understand. It is a nice twist, one of the cleverest I've seen in movies in quite a while. The end is just perfect.
I was about to write that "every soccer mom and indeed every mom will identify with Kate Beckinsale's character" but actually not all of them will. But when they see the ending they might change their mind.
See this for the clever twist, for the sharp direction and editing and for a fine performance by Kate Beckinsale.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
